Re: [spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208

Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com> Sun, 07 May 2023 20:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>
X-Original-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D16C8C14CF15 for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2023 13:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.085
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.085 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_MIME_MALF=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=tekmarc.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bTaAsk7hDulB for <spfbis@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 7 May 2023 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x42a.google.com (mail-pf1-x42a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::42a]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F1C7C14CEFE for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 7 May 2023 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x42a.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-64384c6797eso3048606b3a.2 for <spfbis@ietf.org>; Sun, 07 May 2023 13:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tekmarc.com; s=google; t=1683491657; x=1686083657; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=erwpp4YyVkzSzLL3u2Rzn9A/HoqlCM6n+PVnxt/PRxA=; b=NQt+H3yysd9akz96zBW34hBxKi5FbFhp5XDp+RsPSx4777uTQcyXGZmkDo+XZNbi+J Q2NZbblDA0oMi/Mv1Y7slLbLH99EDPAJLQUHgLvv5d3HP8ZApxuKlLlmsizRnYwWLQT/ YKByw20q4gA9sMImKAzY6YqyOOgSaEMwEOpY72vzoJ9BUpvXPcB2ebSNGJ9QYU7wC9b1 E4tHeaqvK1tWbUuzjwcIAla4bm2ZgjnFvvDW6oIrHmpY4YbIMP9UeRkmjO5N0SIDchqj d88Nyj6qgdThsay0amXJUOsPs/WAB6JyJsEgif4jff5l6gYeSDtj0MUkzDpz8XJW6HLi 9wQA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683491657; x=1686083657; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=erwpp4YyVkzSzLL3u2Rzn9A/HoqlCM6n+PVnxt/PRxA=; b=aDjiWO1XG+Kv1657rtagVvJKRj8sXHfFm5xdeM1ZabxrKXAbGHtJeDXO+rFB5qAwKF lhtkUC1BXzBfxfaRdXSwltZCiERc7nieTUxxyjI3BZsXPvyRJ485iu+fwarSHLmakhCH Yj+tzTVGbEc/GKDc4oMMkCBYMrfpRLJ4tQRYu/x01GvtK5T0azjKyWmRGpFvrHTolM6Y QC1vQXziPUSxV6ahUCH20HdjMoJIEPeuCkT8Rhjxmy8d2Fk5LwFlwqu+Czt3eNtG0ozJ hnVgtiDCouDYo3L6jrlyrIwWMs5J32wkocS2mfD7KBYmLBaRWOfFb3JjpuaqaeusIyiy 5Kzg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxyQBjOVypamXYZkI6iUOUN/wNsGDWftUxvzfDA2DCp1bZ88LMd hdnPIKC5+8Gs35WZNcYarU1FyxDEmleEw6VMJwFiEExWxxYllW4PQqQ=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ40EnKwD0q93UloO3Jb1xTNfCXQGiISNlGCnSa1Lc4bNpBpy9GLciPhxgBh2PRC27bk+KUJ204vNH9MlnbAL44=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:2d1c:b0:643:2559:80f3 with SMTP id fa28-20020a056a002d1c00b00643255980f3mr12280497pfb.2.1683491657286; Sun, 07 May 2023 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <020d01d97db1$50de7560$f29b6020$@crswebsite.com>
In-Reply-To: <020d01d97db1$50de7560$f29b6020$@crswebsite.com>
From: Mark Alley <mark.alley@tekmarc.com>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2023 15:34:05 -0500
Message-ID: <CAP1hoyTozv3ORGE==Xq347HkCG7B6jM3ip1a2QM0Y4C4LBT8mQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: TerenceW@crswebsite.com
Cc: spfbis@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000372b8505fb20722f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/spfbis/-2DK3zLY9DphalFQu05wG7S_sw8>
Subject: Re: [spfbis] Question regarding RFC 7208
X-BeenThere: spfbis@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: SPFbis discussion list <spfbis.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/spfbis/>
List-Post: <mailto:spfbis@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis>, <mailto:spfbis-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 May 2023 20:34:22 -0000

It appears myfloorschedule.com doesn't have an SPF record. This particular
recipients mail filter might have a strict local policy about domains with
no SPF record.

If you add an SPF record to "myfloorschedule.com" that looks something like
the below, does that fix the problem?

myfloorschedule.com IN TXT "v=spf1 include:spf.smtp2go.com ?all"

Use the neutral ?all qualifier just to test so it doesn't change the
behavior for other mail streams on the domain.

-Mark Alley


On Sun, May 7, 2023, 2:50 PM Terence at CRS <TerenceW@crswebsite.com> wrote:

> Good morning.
>
>
>
> We use a service to send out emails for our customers.
>
> The From email is from the sending server, so there should be no SPF
> error. If you reply to the email you are sent to the customer email.
>
> Most email servers allow this, but a few do not including ioa.com and
> gate.net which will not deliver the email.
>
> If you’ll review the header you’ll see that the From address matches the
> envelope address.
>
> Why would we then get this rule triggered and the email not delivered?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Terence Wehle
>
> 888-448-4049
>
> www.floorscheduleweb.com
>
>
>
> rule:
>
> Email on the Internet can be forged in a number of ways. In particular,
> existing protocols place no restriction on what a sending host can use as
> the "*MAIL FROM*" of a message or the domain given on the SMTP HELO/EHLO
> commands. This document describes version 1 of the Sender Policy Framework
> (SPF) protocol, whereby ADministrative Management Domains (ADMDs) can
> explicitly authorize the hosts that are allowed to use their domain names,
> and a receiving host can check such authorization.
>
>
>
> return error:
>
>   johnes@ioa.com
>
>     host mx02.earthlink-vadesecure.net [51.81.61.71]
>
>     Remote host closed connection in response to HELO
> mail1.exim.smtpcorp.com (EHLO response was:
>
>     550 5.7.1 HELO command rejected - ELNK001_203 -
> https://postmaster-earthlink.vadesecure.com/inbound_error_codes/#_203):
>
>     retry timeout exceeded
>
>
>
> Email Header:
>
> Received: from [10.96.31.33] (helo=ss16-010)
>
>               by smtpcorp.com with esmtpsa
> (TLS1.0:ECDHE_SECP256R1__RSA_SHA1__AES_256_CBC__SHA1:256)
>
>               (Exim 4.96-S2G)
>
>               (*envelope-from* shift-reminder@myfloorschedule.com)
>
>               id 1pu7Qr-rlnJZO-2W
>
>               for johnes@ioa.com;
>
>               Wed, 03 May 2023 08:01:49 +0000
>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
>
> *From*: "Shift Reminder" shift-reminder@myfloorschedule.com
>
> To: johnes@ioa.com
>
> Reply-To: glennc@c21mountainlifestyles.com
>
> Date: 3 May 2023 01:01:49 -0700
>
> Subject: Floor Duty Reminder
>
> Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
>
> boundary=--boundary_50571_e0bcab2a-d13a-475b-b2a1-026ba9f1199c
>
> Message-Id: E1pu7Qr-rlnJZO-2W@message-id.smtpcorp.com
> _______________________________________________
> spfbis mailing list
> spfbis@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/spfbis
>